(Fwd) Mail Delivery Failure.

From:           	Richard Redlund <[email protected]>
Date sent:      	Tue, 22 May 2001 08:13:13 +0200

> Since routing of EDI interchanges are stil very common and
> interoperability between users using the Internet and users using VANS
> are needed, problems concerning this issue is on our table.
> 
> As mentioned in section 2.4 of the referenced document we are looking
> for a practical solution whereby information in the UNB segment, such as
> sender's and recierver's logical addresses and EDI message type from the
> UNH segment, are pullled out and made "visible" for the VANS.

You need to distinguish between the encrypted and signed S/MIME 
data transmitted over the internet with the VAN users transmitting 
unencrypted/unsigned data.

To implement an EDIINT to VAN gateway, the VAN must decrypt the 
S/MIME data as a proxy for thier client. The decryption key would be 
held by the VAN. Likewise, the VAN would need to sign the data as 
proxy for a client's message when forwarding replies. The VAN 
gateway would generate the MDNs as a proxy as well.

If the trading partner supported S/MIME encryption/decryption, then the 
VAN gateway isn't needed, except perhaps as an internet provider. If 
the VAN performed value-added services (data translation, etc), then 
the VAN would hold the encryption keys and perform services on 
behalf of thier customers.

You could concieve of a VAN acting as a middleman receiving S/MIME 
messages, performing data services, then forwarding processed 
messages to a client using S/MIME. The communications between
an external trading parter and the VAN would use a different encryption 
key, than the VAN to client communications.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Hage                                              C. Hage Associates
<mailto:[email protected]> Voice/Fax: 1-408-244-8410      1180 Reed Ave #51
<http://www.chage.com/chage/>                          Sunnyvale, CA 94086